You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Rob and Jesse talk with Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman.

Donald Trump’s second term has now entered its second month. His administration is doing much to slow down renewables, and everything it can to slow down offshore wind. Jael Holzman is a senior reporter at Heatmap and the author of our newsletter, “The Fight,” about local battles over renewable permitting around the country.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Jael about the bleak outlook for offshore wind, the use of presidential authority to impede energy development, and why solar has been spared — so far. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: It seems like there’s a mix here of, you know, some projects are now facing active legal trouble because they still had major permits to secure and the Trump administration is now denying those permits. But some projects, as you were saying, seemed safe, but now they’re not. They’re worried about getting these kind of iterative findings from the government that you need to conduct any major work in federal waters.
How much of the chill that we’re seeing is about active permitting denials, versus how much of it is developers being like, we don’t want to risk getting a permit denied, or asking for something that would be very normal to get a normal approval in the course of normal business operations, getting it rejected and then just being stuck. And so we’d rather just pause, not ask for anything for four years, and then come back and start asking again?
Jael Holzman: Offshore wind industry executives won’t say this on the record, but they have anonymously told me, in many words, that they view what is happening to them in the federal permitting system as not only a barometer check for where the energy transition is, but even broader, it is a risk, it is a challenge, it is a threat to integrity.
With respect to our federal permitting processes, generally what we’re seeing here is, I’ve had some folks in conservative energy circles compare it to the Keystone XL-ification of the energy sector, where the political party that doesn’t like a particular technology weaponizes the permitting system against one particular sector. Now, obviously, it’s politically advantageous for conservatives to describe it this way, but I actually find it to be very useful because what it means is as the politics becomes more fraught for the party in power around a technology, there’s increasingly a willingness to step beyond the realm of what the permitting system is legally supposed to do. And that’s a danger if it’s weaponized against an entire sector.
You know, Keystone pipeline, that was one project. It was exemplary — there was a lot of fervor around that one project — that is not an entire sector having the thumb put on its scale by political officials to derail it, especially one that had been a decade-plus in the works and is required for the energy grids to remain stable in various parts of our country. You know, what we’re seeing here is federal officials not even being willing to schedule meetings for permitting processes that are legally required under the law.
For example, my reporting indicated that at least one project that was prioritized under a permitting reform law to have at least an idea public and put out there for when they would expect to get all their permits — this was the Blue Point Wind offshore wind proposal off the coast of New England and New Jersey, New York. And what we’re seeing here is essentially the obscuring of even what permitting reform ostensibly was supposed to do, right?
There was this conversation in D.C. before Trump took office that maybe if you couple statutory reforms that streamline the processes that currently exist, and you put some sort of timetable into the statute, and you combine that with some gimmes to the oil and gas people, right, at least you could grease the skids enough to have everyone benefit. But my reporting on what’s happened to offshore wind has truly revealed that in many respects, “all of the above” is really a Lucy-with-the-football moment for many proponents of an energy transition.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On California solar eating gas, China’s newest reactor, and GOP vs. CCS
Current conditions: Snow is blanketing parts of the Mountain West and Upper Midwest, making travel difficult in Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota • Winds of up to 40 miles per hour could disrupt some air travel through Chicago and Detroit • A cold snap in China is set to drop temperatures by double digit degrees Fahrenheit in northern areas.
In just the last three months, Georgia Power has removed 6 gigawatts of projected demand from its 2030s forecasts — enough to serve every household in the Atlanta metropolitan area more than three times over, according to a filing Friday with the Georgia Public Service Commission. The cause: canceled or postponed data center developments. Projects totaling nearly 6 gigawatts of projected demand by the mid 2030s fell off the books. Of the 28 large power user projects the Southern Company-owned utility disclosed in its report to regulators, 18 have broken ground and 10 are pending constructions. That indicates that the developers are pushing to make sure they advance, and suggests the dip in the last quarter may not extend. In the report, Utility Dive noted, Georgia Power said the “majority of new generation” the company wanted approval for was “not backed by” contracts with large power users.
The adjustment comes as Georgia Power pushes regulators to approve a large new buildout of power plants that could raise monthly bills by $20, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Voters ousted long-time Republicans from the Public Service Commission, electing two Democrats who campaigned on slashing rising rates, Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported earlier this month. Data centers, however, are proliferating elsewhere. Just last night, Amazon unveiled plans to invest $15 billion in data center complexes in northern Indiana.

Over the last three years, California generated steadily more electricity from utility-scale solar farms while generation from natural gas-fired plants dropped. Gas still dominates the state’s power generation, but industrial solar generation more than doubled in the first eight months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2020, new analysis from the federal Energy Information Administration found. Between January and August of this year, natural gas supplied 18% less power than during the same months five years ago. Gas-fired generation spiked in 2021 to compensate for droughts reducing hydroelectric output, and has fallen since. But the largest year-over-year drop occurred this year.
You can count on one hand the number of new nuclear reactors built in the United States and Europe in recent memory. And while the Trump administration is taking major steps toward spurring new reactor projects in the U.S., the long-trumpeted nuclear renaissance has scarcely led to any new power plants with the promise of producing electrons anytime soon. That’s certainly not the case in China. Friday’s newsletter included China’s latest approval of two new reactors to begin construction. Today’s newsletter includes the update that China has officially patched yet another reactor onto the grid. China National Nuclear Corporation, one of the two major state-owned atomic power utilities in the country, announced that Unit 2 of its Zhangzhou nuclear plant is officially hooked up to the grid, World Nuclear News reported. It’s the second of six planned reactors, based on the Chinese-designed Hualong One model, at the same location in Fujian province.
It’s that capacity to build even the most complex of clean-energy infrastructure that has flattened out China’s emissions in recent years, as I wrote earlier this month. To go deeper on China’s grid, you should listen to the episode of Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast that includes UC San Diego export Michael Davidson.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Environmental Protection Agency has granted certain states the power to permit so-called Class VI wells to store captured carbon dioxide. Now many of those Republican-led states want to use that authority to reject carbon wells, E&E News reported. In Texas, the colorful energy regulator Wayne Christian called his agency’s decision to permit a major carbon removal and storage project “a danger.” In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis called carbon storage a “scam” in a video posted on Facebook in March. In Louisiana, Governor Jeff Landry issued an executive order in October slapping a moratorium on new applications for Class VI permits until the state could “put into place a well-thought-out and methodical approach to application review and permitting.” And in Alabama, GOP state lawmaker Matthew Hammett prefiled a bill that would ban CO2 wells in the state’s southern county of Covington.
Arguably the biggest problem facing carbon capture technology is where to put that captured carbon and how to get it there. CO2 pipelines come with some risks, and mounting pushback. Until there’s somewhere for those pipelines to go, such as a well, it’s hard to justify the investment. No wells and no pipelines mean capturing carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere will likely remain an unaffordable luxury.
The Trump administration has granted polluters waivers from Clean Air Act rules as part of its effort to revive heavy industry. But until recently, regulators appointed by President Donald Trump said such a pass wasn’t needed for the coking industry, which distills coal into fuel for a blast furnace. On Friday, Trump issued a proclamation granting a dozen coke manufacturing plants a two-year extension on fully meeting hazardous air pollutant rules, E&E News reported.
The move isn’t entirely unexpected. Trump has tried to revive coal-fired power generation, but keeps coming up against broken equipment that shuts down stations anyway, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported. But as Matthew wrote in July, global coal demand is rising, and the U.S. wants in on it.
As recently as 2022, when Cameco bought its 49% share of Westinghouse, the Canadian uranium producer doubted the company had a future in reactors. Cameco was primarily interested in Westinghouse’s fuel fabrication and maintenance service businesses. “We just assumed there wouldn’t be anything new,” Grant Isaac, Cameco’s president and chief operating officer, told The Wall Street Journal. Now, the Trump administration putting up $80 billion to fund at least 10 new Westinghouse AP1000, each with the capacity to power 1 million American homes.
Automakers aren’t sure what to do with their EVs in the age of Trump.
The Los Angeles Auto Show over the years has been the launchpad for lots of new electric vehicles and a place for carmakers to declare their EV ambitions. It’s a fitting stage given California’s status not only as the home of American car culture, but also as the United States’ biggest EV market by far.
At the 2025 show, which had its media day on Thursday, electrification was more off to the side than front-and-center, however. The new breed of affordable models that could give many more drivers access to the electric car market — such as the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt revivals and the upcoming Toyota C-HR electric — could be found on the show floor, waiting to be discovered by the car fans who would descend on the L.A. Convention Center in the days to come.
But fanfare over the electric future was decidedly tamped down. The atmosphere reflected the uneasy state of EVs in America in this first year of the new Trump administration. During Kia’s press conference to start the day, for example, the EV9 three-row electric crossover lingered at the edge of the stage while brand bigwigs revealed a redesign of its petroleum-powered cousin, the best-selling Telluride, whose climate credentials go only as far as a 30-miles-per-gallon hybrid version.
Hyundai has been perhaps the most successful brand outside of Tesla in selling America on EVs, but its L.A. presentation pushed battery power into niche corners of the car world, the racetrack and the trail. One of its two attractions was the North American reveal of the limited-edition Ioniq 6N, the powered-up sports car version of the Ioniq 6 electric sedan, which the brand revealed at this very show three years ago.
This 641-horsepower battery-powered beast was an inevitability, given that Hyundai’s high-performance “N” division has built limited-edition racing versions of many of the carmakers’ stock vehicles, and its muscular version of the Ioniq 5 hatchback has been one of the best-regarded performance-focused EVs yet to hit the car market. Like its predecessor, Ioniq 6N is a test case in how to make electric power appeal to car enthusiasts who crave stick shifts and snarling V8s, so Hyundai built in simulated gear shifts and sounds to simulate the sensations of pushing a combustion car to its limits.
More compelling — and curious — was the Crater, the kind of otherworldly angular tank that Tesla’s Cybertruck wishes it were. A concept car rather than a vehicle ready to go into real production, the Crater is meant to signify the vision of Hyundai’s XRT sub-brand that makes off-roading versions of the brand’s vehicles, combustion ones included.
Although Hyundai barely said the “e” word during its presentation, Crater is meant to at least suggest an all-electric version of a supremely rugged vehicle that would compete with the likes of the Jeep Wrangler and Ford Bronco. The concept has no tailpipe or engine, and the pixelated lights are taken from those used on the Ioniq series. Yet even this is uncertain: Having been burned by the back-and-forth of regime change in America, with Biden-era EV incentives disappearing just as the Korean brands were adjusting their production lines to meet the rules, the carmakers are wondering how hard to push battery power here.
Even the all-electric car brands didn’t arrive with sound and fury to show off all-new cars that would invigorate the EV market. Instead, they are doing the slow and steady work that legacy car companies have been doing for years, hoping to build long-term stability by filling out their vehicle lineups with more subtly different versions at more price points.
The Rivian R2 sat at the edge of the brand’s small display, giving many people their first in-person look at what could be the make-or-break vehicle for the EV startup. Its quiet presence was a subtle reminder that the smaller SUV is coming next year at a promised price of around $45,000, which would provide a (more) affordable option for drivers who’ve lusted after the brand’s $70,000-plus initial slate of electric SUVs and pickup trucks.
Likewise, Lucid took the mic after Hyundai to introduce a somewhat more attainable version of its electric SUV. The Gravity Touring edition brings the vehicle’s starting price from six figures down to $80,000, thanks in part to a smaller battery pack that still delivers more than 300 miles of range thanks to the carmaker’s hyper-focus on aerodynamics and efficiency. The price is still high, but this is a compelling vehicle: Gravity is a spacious three-row vehicle that goes 0 to 60 miles per hour in four seconds and recharges its battery at blazing speed thanks to 1,000-volt architecture that can add a claimed 200 miles in 15 minutes.
Car show stories come with a big caveat: These events don’t have the status they did in the heyday of old media, when new vehicles greeted the world for the first time in front of the assembled reporters. Tesla has always hosted its own vehicle events rather than share the stage, and these days, lots of brands have followed suit. Rivan revealed the R2 and R3 on its own turn last year, which is why the R2 could loom, unheralded, in a quiet corner of the show floor in Los Angeles.
Yet what the car industry chooses to show and say in front of the car media is still a telling indicator. What the companies said and didn’t say on Thursday suggests an industry that’s clearly struggling to navigate the electrification transition in America. Kia has been at the forefront of building great EVs for the States; its trumpeting of a hybrid Telluride is welcome, but 10 years out of date. The absence of EV hype in press events reveals an industry putting the brakes on the big talking points and preparing to lean back toward fossil fuels to maintain their profitability through this era of American EV limbo.
The Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is now all but impossible. Limiting — and eventually reversing — the damage will take some thought.
For the second year in a row, the United Nations climate conference ended without a consensus declaration that tackling global warming requires transitioning away from fossil fuels. The final agreement at COP30 did, however, touch on another uncomfortable subject: Countries resolved to limit “the magnitude and duration of any temperature overshoot.”
In the 2015 Paris Agreement, 197 nations pledged to try to prevent average temperature rise of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Now 10 years later, scientists say that exceeding that level has become inevitable. It may be possible to turn the thermostat back down after this “overshoot” occurs, though — a possibility this year’s COP agreement appears to endorse.
The idea demands a far meatier discussion than world leaders have had to date, according to Oliver Geden, a senior fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, and a key contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific reports. If limiting warming to 1.5 degrees now requires surpassing that level and coming back to it later, and if this is something that countries actually want to attempt, there are a lot of implications to think through.
Geden and Andy Reisinger, an associate professor at Australian National University and another IPCC author, published an article last week spelling out what it would mean for policymakers to take this concept of “temporary overshoot” seriously. For example, the final agreement from COP30 encourages Parties to align their nationally determined contributions towards global net zero by or around mid-century.” Net zero, in this case, means cutting CO2 emissions as far as possible, and then cancelling out any residuals with efforts to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Scientists now estimate that if the world achieves that balance by 2050, we’ll pass 1.5 and bring warming to a peak of about 1.7 degrees above pre-industrial levels. At that point, the planet will not begin to cool on its own. Ensuring that an “overshoot” of 1.5 degrees is temporary, then, requires removing even more carbon from the atmosphere than is being emitted — it requires achieving “net-negative” emissions.
Suffice it to say, you will not find the words “net negative” in any COP agreements. “If 1.5 degrees C is to remain the core temperature goal, then net zero can no longer be seen as an end point but only as a transition point in climate policy,” Geden and Reisinger wrote. The two stress that this wouldn’t prevent all of the harms of going past that level of warming, but it would reduce risk, depending on the magnitude and duration of the overshoot.
I spoke to Geden on Thursday, while the UN climate conference was still underway in Belém, Brazil, about what policymakers are missing about overshoot and the 1.5 degree goal. Our conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
I’ve had scientists tell me they don’t like the term “overshoot” because the 1.5 degree boundary is arbitrary. How do you think about it?
You can apply the concept of overshoot to any level. You could also apply it to 2 degrees or 1.6 or 1.7. It’s just saying that there is a defined level you care about, and it’s about exceeding that level and returning to it later. That is the basic concept, and then 1.5 is the logical application right now in terms of where climate policy is. That return idea is not very well represented, but that’s how it has been used in the IPCC for quite some time — exceedance and return.
What was the impetus for writing the article with Reisinger and what was your main message?
We wanted to explain the concept of overshoot because it seems that it’s now being discussed more. The UN secretary general started using it in a speech to the World Meteorological Association two weeks before Belém, and now has continuously done so. It also led to some irritation because people interpret it as, He just called 1.5 off, although he usually says, “Science tells us you can come back to it.”
These overshoot trajectories and pathways for 1.5 degrees have been around since at least the Special Report on 1.5 Degrees in 2018, and then increasingly dominated the modeling of 1.5. But we feel that the broader climate policy community never quite got the point that it is baked into these trajectories whenever scientists say 1.5 is still possible. But then this element of, what does this now mean? Who has to do what? How is it possible to get temperature down? That’s even more obscure, in a way, in the political debate, because it means net-zero CO2 is not enough. Net-zero CO2 would halt temperature increase. To get it down, you need to go net negative. And then the obvious question, politically, would be, who’s going to do that?
In the paper, you write that the amount of net-negative emissions required to reduce global average temperatures by just 0.1 degrees is about equal to five years of current annual emissions, or 100x our current annual carbon removal, which is mostly from planting trees. Given that, is it realistic to talk about reversing warming?
That’s not for me to say. If you think about the trajectory — how would, let’s say, a temperature trajectory in the 21st century look? What you would get now is a peak warming level above 1.5. Then really the question is, what happens afterwards? If everybody only talks about going to net-zero CO2 then we should assume it’s that new peak temperature level, and then we just stay there. But if you want to say the world needs to go back down to 1.5 by the end of the century then we have to talk about net-negative levels, and we still may find out that it’s not realistic.
This kind of circumvents the conversation of how good we look on getting to net zero. We all assume that’s doable. I also assume that’s doable. But you cannot forget the fact that right now, our emissions are still rising.
One of the policy implications you write about in the piece is that if Europe were to set a target to go net negative, its carbon pricing scheme could go from a source of income to a financial burden. Can you explain that?
If you have carbon pricing and you have emitters, you can finance carbon dioxide removal through the revenues from carbon pricing. But if you want to go net negative, you need more removals than you have emissions. The question is, who’s going to pay for it? You would always have residual emitters, but if you want to go deeply into net negative, you will run out of revenue sources to finance these removals.
One of the big problems is, conceptually, a government can say, Okay, your factory does not have a license to produce anymore, and you can force it to close down. But you cannot force any entity to remove CO2 for you. So how can a government guarantee that these removals are really going to happen? Would the acceleration of this carbon dioxide removal actually work? Which methods do we prefer? Do we have enough geological storage? It’s all unresolved. This paper is not a call to Europe to say hey, just make a promise. [It’s saying,] can you please really think about it? Can we please stop assuming somebody is going to organize all this to go net negative and then it magically happens? You need to make a serious plan. And you may find out that it’s too hard to do.
Another question is, how will other actors react? I think that’s part of the reluctance to talk about going net negative. The mental model right now of being a frontrunner is going down to the net zero line and then waiting there for the others to come. But if you enter net negative territory, it becomes basically bottomless. So every developing country could, reasonably so, demand ever higher levels of you. In the European Union, where you have 27 member states, even there, you would get into distributional challenges because some member states may ask others to go net negative because they are disadvantaged.
Also, which sectors would be forced to go net negative, which ones can stay net positive? Agriculture, at least as long as you have livestock, will be net positive. Then you have a country like Ireland, with 30% of the emissions coming from agriculture. They will stay a net-positive country, probably, and then others would have to go net negative. So you can imagine what kind of tensions you would get in.
I know you’re not in Belém, but from what you’ve read and from what you’re hearing, do you think that overshoot and all of these questions that you raise are being discussed more there? Do you get the sense that they are making their way into the conversation more?
A bit. The talk you hear is only just about 1.5 and 1.5-aligned, and it makes you wonder what governments or NGOs think, how this is going to happen. In the text presented by the Brazilian government, overshoot is mentioned, and “limiting or minimizing magnitude and duration of overshoot.” But it does not talk about what that actually means.
The whole 1.5 conversation, I think it’s hard for governments to understand. At the same they’re getting told, “if you just look at the pledges, you will end up at 2.6 or 2.7 or 2.8 by the end of the century, you have to do more.” Of course they all have to do more, but to really get to 1.5 they have to do more than they can imagine. If the world does not want to cross 1.5, never ever, it would need to be at net-zero CO2 in 2030, between 2030 and 2035. And if you go later, then you have to go net negative. It’s actually quite easy, but it seems to be uncomfortable knowledge. And then the way we communicate the challenge — governments, scientists, media — it’s not very straightforward.
All these temperature targets are special in the sense that they set an absolute target. Usually policymakers, governments, set relative targets, like 0.7% of national GDP for overseas development aid — you can miss that every year, but then you can say, next year we’re going to meet it. That logic does not apply here. Once you are there, you are there. Then it’s not enough to say that next year we are going to put more effort into it. You just then can limit the extra damage.